Arthur Gibson, prosecuting, told jurors: “He felt lonely and found no one in whom he could confide. No one except the girl. As he himself acknowledges he became far too close to her, using her as an emotional support.

“She responded, perhaps she felt honoured to be recipient of his confidence, but as is so often the case she was far less mature, far less grown up, far less experienced in the ways of the world than she thought.

“She was happy, pleased to be his friend, to be his confidant, but nothing more and certainly not his girlfriend, and certainly not for that friendship to cross the line into a physical sexual relationship.

“And that sadly, is what the prosecution say happened. Seeing her respond to his emotional crisis, Matthew Hackett came to be physically and sexually attracted to her. That attraction manifested itself by him touching her in a sexual manner on a number of occasions.”

Read More

Mr Gibson told the jury: “The touching, albeit under her clothing, of her bottom, legs, breasts and stomach, is not the worst example of sexual assault, but it is still wrong and criminally wrong to engage in such activity when the recipient does not consent in it, and the detrimental effect of such activity, particularly on a young girl can be out of all proportion.

“That Matthew Hackett knew such activity was wrong, that he knew that it was without her consent is beyond doubt. I say that because he asserted many times to the police during his interview firstly that he never regarded her in that way, secondly that he never touched her in a sexual manner, thirdly that he never touched her breasts nor her bottom, although he may have touched her stomach by way of reassurance, and her back to lessen back ache from which she was suffering.”

Mr Gibson said the first alleged offence happened while the girl and her family were in a hotel and Hackett was in an adjoining room. While wearing pyjamas she went into his room to watch films on his computer. He allegedly put his hand on her back under her top and then moved his hand downwards inside her knickers and onto her bottom and upper leg.

Read More

When they next met, it is alleged, he told her not to tell anyone about the incident.

Hackett is accused of touching her breasts, kissing her and even getting into bed with her in separate incidents over a number of months.

Mr Gibson said that Hackett accepts that he touched her stomach on a number of occasions but only to give her reassurance.

Mr Gibson said that Hackett maintained “it was certainly not sexual, and she either consented to it or at the very least gave him reasonable ground to believe that she consented to him touching her there”.

The defendant denies that the other incidents occurred at all.

Read More

The girl only told her mum about the incidents a year later when she broke down in tears and the police were then informed.

When interviewed Hackett: “accepted that he had got too close emotionally to the girl as a result of his own personal circumstances... But he denied he had touched her sexually or that he was interested in her in a sexual way. “